Hypocrisy in the Pews

[fix]

msproule:

With all due respect, you are both still overlooking a central point that has been offered ad nauseam and consistently ignored:
Yes, the faithful are subject to the Pastor. But the Pastor is subject to the Bishop. Likewise, the Bishop is subject to the Supreme Pontiff. The local parish does not operate in a vacuum.

If we all lived in seclusion and only knew the law insofar as it is interpreted by our Pastor, then the situation might be different. Instead, we have ready access to information almost as soon as it is available. As a caveat, such access can be problematic. (This was the case following Vatican II, where misinterpretations and assumptions of improperly disseminated information led to such things as the hasty removal of communion rails…a fact that may arguably be at the root of this whole kneeling debate anyway).

However, in light of the inquiries that arose following the USCCB’s wording of the particular instruction, the Vatican has responded with the necessary clarifications. If one is truly concerned about the fullness of the Church’s teaching, then one should first consider the fullness of the Church’s teaching instead of ignoring it! Do you believe the CDW wishes to write a new letter for every parish priest who illegally denies Holy Communion to a kneeling communicant?

The situation is different for hand holding. Some Bishops have condoned it, other have condemned it. Still others (and even the Vatican) have remained silent or neutral. Therefore, one should follow the instructions of one’s Bishop on the matter. However, that does not prevent us from arguing for or against the practice. Such worthy debates should not be wrongly classified (or labeled) as “hypocrisy”.

Nicely done. I can’t figure out why some want strict “obedience” to anyone when a person has important information and a properly formed conscience. Is it not wrong to “obey” when such “obedience” would force one to act against one’s properly formed conscience?

I think it would be helpful if we could define obedience and what is actually required of the lay faithful when the highest authority has spoken on a particular issue and a lesser authority contradicts the higher authority.

 

[AltarMan]

I’m sorry that you seem so bitter. My heart goes out to you, truly. It wasn’t until this post that I can truly see the anger and resentment you hold. I’m so sorry.

You missed the point. We are a parish that DOES follow the Vatican. We kneel and receive on the tongue. A Universal Indult doesn’t make it any different.

Pat on the back? Okay.
Tonight when we say our prayers we will include you. In this Advent season, the angry should be at the forefront of our devotions.

Blessed are the poor of Spirit. Things will get better.

God Bless.

Your sarchastic judgements do nothing but weaken your position. My God, look at your last several posts – you do have some anger/bitterness in you!

It’s especially sad to see that when it’s followed a declaration of prayers. Then again it might make you feel good, so go at it – it dosen’t offend me.

As for myself, I simply don’t have any tolerance for those who rail on about certain delicts and abuses, yet support the ones they hold so dear, as if they know “better” than the Church. This hypocrisy has taken a toll on the Church and it needs to stop – that of course would require people to come to terms with their prideful egos.

 

[fix]

AltarMan:

As for myself, I simply don’t have any tolerance for those who rail on about certain delicts and abuses, yet support the ones they hold so dear, as if they know “better” than the Church. This hypocrisy has taken a toll on the Church and it needs to stop – that of course would require people to come to terms with their prideful egos.

I would agree, of course, that does not include those folks who kneel for communion as they are not disobedient.

 

[netmilsmom]

AltarMan:

Your sarchastic judgements do nothing but weaken your position. My God, look at your last several posts – you do have some anger/bitterness in you!

It’s especially sad to see that when it’s followed a declaration of prayers. Then again it might make you feel good, so go at it – it dosen’t offend me.

It isn’t meant to be sarcastic. I’m truly sorry you feel it is to make myself feel better. We have gone back and forth and now I’ll I have is prayer for you.

 

[Orionthehunter]

msproule:

With all due respect, you are both still overlooking a central point that has been offered ad nauseam and consistently ignored:
Yes, the faithful are subject to the Pastor. But the Pastor is subject to the Bishop. Likewise, the Bishop is subject to the Supreme Pontiff. The local parish does not operate in a vacuum.

If we all lived in seclusion and only knew the law insofar as it is interpreted by our Pastor, then the situation might be different. Instead, we have ready access to information almost as soon as it is available. As a caveat, such access can be problematic. (This was the case following Vatican II, where misinterpretations and assumptions of improperly disseminated information led to such things as the hasty removal of communion rails…a fact that may arguably be at the root of this whole kneeling debate anyway).

However, in light of the inquiries that arose following the USCCB’s wording of the particular instruction, the Vatican has responded with the necessary clarifications. If one is truly concerned about the fullness of the Church’s teaching, then one should first consider the fullness of the Church’s teaching instead of ignoring it! Do you believe the CDW wishes to write a new letter for every parish priest who illegally denies Holy Communion to a kneeling communicant?

The situation is different for hand holding. Some Bishops have condoned it, other have condemned it. Still others (and even the Vatican) have remained silent or neutral. Therefore, one should follow the instructions of one’s Bishop on the matter. However, that does not prevent us from arguing for or against the practice. Such worthy debates should not be wrongly classified (or labeled) as “hypocrisy”.

I’m not ignoring the clarifications such that a faithful is within his/her rights to defy the Pastor after being instructed on the Norm in the U.S. My point is that insistance on defying a local Pastor’s legitimate counsel on the matter sets an example that it is ok to defy a Pastor. Thus, on other issues of actual abuse or Pastoral instruction, other parishioners may get the idea if “Miss Orthodox” can defy the pastor, then so can I." It is this disunity and confusion that I’m opposed to.

And in an effort to support the Pastor correct actual abuse and disunity, I just ask people to consider that the unity and submission to the Pastor on this issue can serve a greater purpose- eliminating actual abuses, foster better catechesis and unity of worship within a parish.

 

[AltarMan]

Orionthehunter:

I’m not ignoring the clarifications such that a faithful is within his/her rights to defy the Pastor after being instructed on the Norm in the U.S. My point is that insistance on defying a local Pastor’s legitimate counsel on the matter sets an example that it is ok to defy a Pastor. Thus, on other issues of actual abuse or Pastoral instruction, other parishioners may get the idea if “Miss Orthodox” can defy the pastor, then so can I." It is this disunity and confusion that I’m opposed to.

Precisely.

And when issues like hand-holding, the orans, liturgical dance, etc. come up, you can bet the pastor will be far less likely to take action because the complainer has already demonstrated that they are tolerant of certain liturgical delicts and abuses.

 

[msproule]

Orionthehunter:

…in an effort to support the Pastor correct actual abuse and disunity, I just ask people to consider that the unity and submission to the Pastor on this issue can serve a greater purpose- eliminating actual abuses, foster better catechesis and unity of worship within a parish.

Can you please be more specific? What exactly are these “actual abuses” which have been referred to many times?

I know that it is an actual abuse for a Pastor to impose upon the faithful a posture for receiving Holy Communion. He is no more allowed to do this than to force a unified posture after the faithful have returned to their pews immediately following Holy Communion. Given the information that we have available, these are undeniable facts.

To simply accept his encroachment without discussing the situation further would build only a facade of unity for the “benefit” of the other sheep and evade the problem. My point is that even a priest may require better catechesis. With his very busy schedule, he may not be aware that the Vatican has already and authoritatively issued clarifications. You are doing him a disservice by not engaging in educational dialogue.

 

[msproule]

AltarMan:

And when issues like hand-holding, the orans, liturgical dance, etc. come up, you can bet the pastor will be far less likely to take action because the complainer has already demonstrated that they are tolerant of certain liturgical delicts and abuses.

Not if he were properly catechised…

Hand Holding: Permitted in most Dioceses
Orans: Permitted in most (if not all) Dioceses
(So-Called) Liturgical Dance: Forbidden within the Mass (at least in Western cultures, as stated by the competent authority of the CDW)

 

[Orionthehunter]

msproule:

Can you please be more specific? What exactly are these “actual abuses” which have been referred to many times?

I know that it is an actual abuse for a Pastor to impose upon the faithful a posture for receiving Holy Communion. He is no more allowed to do this than to force a unified posture after the faithful have returned to their pews immediately following Holy Communion. Given the information that we have available, these are undeniable facts.

To simply accept his encroachment without discussing the situation further would build only a facade of unity for the “benefit” of the other sheep and evade the problem. My point is that even a priest may require better catechesis. With his very busy schedule, he may not be aware that the Vatican has already and authoritatively issued clarifications. You are doing him a disservice by not engaging in educational dialogue.

There is a thread called “liturgical abuses- what isthe big deal anyway” where Buffalo lists what he believed were 11 abuses practiced at his parish. After discussing the issue, it was the consensus that probably about 7 or so were likely abuses. There is also a thread started by Altarman where his DRE or the parish’s lay liturgical director is forcing altar servers to assume a posture contrary to the GIRM (I don’t recall the specifics).

While it might be an abuse to “impose” a posture when presenting yourself to recieve the Eucharist, it is not an abuse to pastorally chatechize the communicant on the norm in the US (standing preceeded by a reverential bow), its rationale and request the communicant conform to the norm in the US.

While a Pastor might not be able to force a posture after Communion, it is also within his (or the Bishop’s) rights to encourage a uniform posture. In our diocese, our Bishop has instructed that unless one has a physical reason for not kneeling, the faithful are to return to their pews and kneel in contemplative prayer until the Body is returned to the Tabernacle with its door shut and the utensils used for Communion have been properly cleaned.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

AltarMan:

You’re wrong again.

First the GIRM does not apply to the Divine Liturgies.

That said if the Catholic Church decided to mandate kneeling during the Anaphora it certainly wouldn’t be stopped by what you term the “Apostolic nature” of the Divine Liturgies.

(It actually sounds like you just made that up to be quite honest.)

Keep in mind that if such as change was ever instituted (which obviously has next to no chance of happening) it would originate and take place through the cognizant eastern church and rite – it would not simply flow from the western side of the Church.

AFAIK, kneeling in the Latin rite is of medieval, not Apostolic, origin.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

With Rome’s approval, the USCCB has instructed Pastors to pastorally request that the person cease. The person refuses legitimate instruction from his Pastor. I’m trying to see what I’m interpreting. Rome says they are not to be refused but that doesn’t deny they are rejecting publicly legitimate instruction from his Pastor.

The GIRM, while seeming to imply that kneeling is a “trouble” situation, does not instruct the pastor to ask the person to cease kneeling. It does say that the pastor should explain the reasons for the norm. The CDW is competent to interpret its own laws and recognitions. You are at odds with that dicastery.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

AltarMan:

You just hit the nail on the head – the abject arrogance of those who feel they know “better” than what the Church actually instructs.

Just because your pastor supports a communal posture that does match what the Church instructs in no way makes it correct or “better.”

The first step in making your judgment is knowing what the Church instructs. I don’t think there are many stops in the appeals process between CDW and pope, so it seems pretty clear that the Church, even in approving a splash of American exceptionalism, has not forbidden kneeling and has explicitly stated that those who kneel are not disobedient. I’ll gladly support you in condemning real “conservative hypocrisy,” but you’ve got no case here - there is no disobedience and thus no hypocrisy for criticizing abuse while being personally disobedient.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

I’m not ignoring the clarifications such that a faithful is within his/her rights to defy the Pastor after being instructed on the Norm in the U.S. My point is that insistance on defying a local Pastor’s legitimate counsel on the matter sets an example that it is ok to defy a Pastor. Thus, on other issues of actual abuse or Pastoral instruction, other parishioners may get the idea if “Miss Orthodox” can defy the pastor, then so can I." It is this disunity and confusion that I’m opposed to.

And in an effort to support the Pastor correct actual abuse and disunity, I just ask people to consider that the unity and submission to the Pastor on this issue can serve a greater purpose- eliminating actual abuses, foster better catechesis and unity of worship within a parish.

I wish the context of the thread had allowed me more occasion to agree with you. Now that I’ve attempted to join my voice to those who show that kneeling is not disobedience (accumulating a nice string of consecutive posts on this apparently no-longer-so-interesting thread), I’ll say that I am for yielding to a pastor’s preference when it comes to optional behaviors, especially if you will give an impression to the “weaker brethren” that disobedience is okay. I would much rather kneel to receive, but only do so if the congregation in general is. I still wouldn’t assume obedience in such matters necessary, and would probably exert my rights if conscience made me, but I think it’s a good humble position to take.

For those who have the freedom to kneel as they are allowed, more power to you. I can’t get away with it without losing the “street cred” (as a reasonable person and not a “radical”) necessary to maintain good relations with priests (and fellow worshipers) and bring about incremental change.

 

[msproule]

Andreas,

A fine string of consecutive posts if I may say so!
Andreas Hofer:

I would much rather kneel to receive, but only do so if the congregation in general is. I still wouldn’t assume obedience in such matters necessary, and would probably exert my rights if conscience made me, but I think it’s a good humble position to take.

This sums up my position in a nutshell, too.

 

[AltarMan]

Andreas Hofer:

I wish the context of the thread had allowed me more occasion to agree with you. Now that I’ve attempted to join my voice to those who show that kneeling is not disobedience (accumulating a nice string of consecutive posts on this apparently no-longer-so-interesting thread), I’ll say that I am for yielding to a pastor’s preference when it comes to optional behaviors, especially if you will give an impression to the “weaker brethren” that disobedience is okay. **I would much rather kneel to receive, but only do so if the congregation in general is. I still wouldn’t assume obedience in such matters necessary, and would probably exert my rights if conscience made me, but I think it’s a good humble position to take. **

For those who have the freedom to kneel as they are allowed, more power to you. I can’t get away with it without losing the “street cred” (as a reasonable person and not a “radical”) necessary to maintain good relations with priests (and fellow worshipers) and bring about incremental change.

Very well articulated.

 

[fix]

Andreas Hofer:

I still wouldn’t assume obedience in such matters necessary, and would probably exert my rights if conscience made me, but I think it’s a good humble position to take.

That is why we cannot call someone who kneels hypocritical. This thread attempted to brand folks in a particular way when each case is very different.

 

[msproule]

fix:

That is why we cannot call someone who kneels hypocritical. This thread attempted to brand folks in a particular way when each case is very different.

Quite true. Excellent point.

 

[Ham1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltarMan
I think Michelle Arnold hit the nail on the head with:

“…For a communicant at a standard Roman-rite liturgy to deliberately ignore the just instruction from a priest to receive Communion while standing, instruction given in accord with the liturgical rubrics approved by the Vatican for use in the United States, would be problematic indeed. We are called to be faithful to all just instruction given by the Church through its ordained ministers, not only to those instructions we like or understand…”

Orionthehunter:

I think this post deserves to be bumped as it does so well to explain where I’m coming from regarding how defying this legitimate instruction doesn’t enhance show respect and support for a Pastor charges with bringing all into GIRM conformance. It is especially a potential big hinderance if the person kneeling is known for his orthodoxy as he too is picking and choosing which legitimate instructions he is following.

Some very interesting debate here. One thing is curious to me and that is that no one who advocates kneeling for Communion has really addressed this statement by Michelle Arnold nor the statements made by Whitehead on the same subject.

I don’t know about all of you, but I have a fairly high regard for their insight. Their reasoning seems to lead them to conclusions quite far from what some are promoting here.

Another point that I raised earlier in the thread (with apparently no response) is that the language of the CDW appears to be intended for the priests and not for the faithful. I think we make a mistake when we assume that because the CDW says that one who kneels is not to be “accused of disobediance” that therefore kneeling in the US is all good and fully approved posture. This woudl appear to be an instruction for priests not an official revision of the norm in the US.

I’m interested in comments back however, I have noticed some rather emotionally charged posts here. Let’s try to keep this charitable so that we might better discover the truth. I’m open to changing my position on this but I see the points listed above as obstacles to such a change.

 

[msproule]

Ham1:

Some very interesting debate here. One thing is curious to me and that is that no one who advocates kneeling for Communion has really addressed this statement by Michelle Arnold nor the statements made by Whitehead on the same subject.

I don’t know about all of you, but I have a fairly high regard for their insight. Their reasoning seems to lead them to conclusions quite far from what some are promoting here.

Indeed, their responses are to be received with the highest regard.

However, please take some time to listen to the link I provided in post #50 (and provide once again here) in which Karl Keating provides a response more in line with those of us who believe the priest is not acting within his competency to demand a particular posture for Holy Communion. I will try to transcribe the audio when I get time, if anybody is interested.

This certainly creates a dilemma! I believe all responses from these trusted sources (Arnold, Whitehead, and Keating) are correct in and of themselves. However, only as a whole do they compose the full answer and should be considered as such. From there, I suppose one is to follow one’s own properly-formed conscience on the matter, without fear of prejudice.

 

[msproule]

Indeed, their responses are to be received with the highest regard.

However, please take some time to listen to the link I provided in post #50 (and provide once again here) in which Karl Keating provides a response more in line with those of us who believe the priest is not acting within his competency to demand a particular posture for Holy Communion. I will try to transcribe the audio when I get time, if anybody is interested.

By the way, here is Jimmy Akin’s response to this matter.

This certainly creates a dilemma! I believe all responses from these trusted sources (Arnold, Whitehead, Keating, and Akin) are correct in and of themselves. However, only as a whole do they compose the full answer and should be considered as such. From there, I suppose one is to follow one’s own properly-formed conscience on the matter, without fear of prejudice.